Dixieland: The Country of Tomorrow, Everyday (yet another Confederate TL)

[Bookmark1995]

I bet a lot of Washington politicians are indulging in a bit of schadenfreude at the troubles of the CS.

People might write ITTL that "the greatest threat of the Confederacy were the Confederates themselves."

 

[Fiver]

Interestingly, the "Army First" policy of Bragg ensured that the standing army of the Confederate States was significantly larger than the United States, which had tempted many more radical members of Congress to call for a war to "liberate" the border states, though Bragg never actually listened to them.

I am liking this timeline, but the Confederates having "significantly larger" standing army than the Union would require massive expenditures by the Confederacy. The Union would have about 3.8 free people for every one on the Confederacy. Building equal size armies would cost each Union taxpayer about 26 cents for each $1 spent by the Confederacy. For the Confederacy to have a significantly larger army probably requires spending 5 or 6 times as much per taxpayer on military funding, which doesn't seem sustainable.

 

[Fiver]

Presumably none of the workforce at the state arsenals are slaves. Industrial factory work actually requires a degree of skill/education for even the base laborers - and there's no way they're going to be educating slaves in any serious numbers. Totally out of the question for the planter class to tolerate government investment in educating non-whites. The worker base will probably all be poor, but relatively well-educated whites (ie, think rural guys who learned to read in bible class).

If so, that would make those government arsenals the only segment of Confederate industry that didn't use slaves heavily. In OTL, the majority of workers at the Tredegar Iron Works were slaves.

"One of Anderson's most notable decisions was to introduce slaves into skilled industrial work at the ironworks, and by 1864, more than half the workers at Tredegar were bondsmen." - Encyclopedia Virginia

"In 1847, in response to striking white workers, Anderson introduced slave labor into his facility. This controversial move helped cut costs and contributed to the Iron Works' continued growth. By 1860 the Tredegar Iron Works had become the largest producer of iron in the South, with a complex covering nearly five acres and employing close to 800 laborers, both black and white, free and slave." - National Park service

 

[TastySpam]

I am liking this timeline, but the Confederates having "significantly larger" standing army than the Union would require massive expenditures by the Confederacy. The Union would have about 3.8 free people for every one on the Confederacy. Building equal size armies would cost each Union taxpayer about 26 cents for each $1 spent by the Confederacy. For the Confederacy to have a significantly larger army probably requires spending 5 or 6 times as much per taxpayer on military funding, which doesn't seem sustainable.

Your math is entirely correct and pretty close to what I gamed out too. I think I mentioned somewhere that the tax burden was significantly higher in the South than in the North.

If so, that would make those government arsenals the only segment of Confederate industry that didn't use slaves heavily. In OTL, the majority of workers at the Tredegar Iron Works were slaves.

Yeah, it's definitely an abberation and probably an intentional one (ie, so slaveowners don't see the government arsenals as "competition")

 

[TastySpam]

The Forrest-Clay War
​

The Alabama War was almost entirely fought within Montgomery, simply because the Alabama State Capitol and the White House were literally across the street from another in Montgomery. Most confusingly, the Alabama State Legislature and the Confederate Congress were both meeting in the Alabama State Capitol. It was always intended for the Confederate Congress to get its own building, however, fiscal irregularities and an inability to agree on where the capital ought to be meant that the issue was continually delayed to further sessions. Some thought that this would vastly increase the influence of Alabama on national politics. However, it actually did the opposite, because tensions between Confederate Congressmen and Alabama State Legislators often flared up over random feuds over who would be allowed to use what rooms when. In general, most officials of the Confederate Government sided with President Forrest, which allowed the experienced general to charge the State Capitol with his loyal men and quickly seize control of the building, capturing many state legislators who were unable to retreat in time. However, many Alabama legislators did manage to escape, quickly rendezvousing with the State Militia called by Governor Clay. Perhaps in a propaganda victory for Clay, Forrest's deep pockets allowed him to more or less hire any local resident willing to hold a rifle and shoot it, including many of the poorer black residents, despite the fact that both sides were trying to link the other side to "negroid barbarity."

Forrest found himself in an unusual situation for him, commanding a larger but much more poorly trained army than his enemy. Pivoting his tactics from cavalry offense to infantry defense, Forrest barricaded every street in Montgomery he could find, staffing poorly-trained mercenary troops in front of more experienced troops (who could then prevent them from retreating). Although Clay's men were significantly better trained and could actually aim, the mess of men on the defense shooting large amounts of lead in the vague direction in the enemy was able to inflict a great deal many wounds on Clay's men. Interestingly, although the Confederate White House fell, the climax of the war involved firefights in and around the State Capitol, which eventually ended in failure for Clay's troops, who realized that they simply did not have the manpower to secure the entire Capitol. His men began to retreat when they were in turn set on by a small regiment of blade-wielding troops led by Forrest himself, who intended on personally cutting Clay's head off. However, Clay's men, wildly outnumbering Forrest's squad, managed to spray large amounts of bullets and eventually escape, even inflicting a bullet wound on Forrest. Several days after Clay's men had retreated from Montgomery in the direction of Mobile, they received word that Forrest's wound, combined with diabetes complications, had actually killed the President.

Realizing that the Vice President, Augustus H. Garland, was significantly less tainted by scandal than Forrest (although not entirely untainted) and that his military forces were beaten, Clay and his close associates decided to immediately flee from Mobile, landing instead in Cuba. President Garland was quickly sworn in, as was Clay's Lt. Governor (who was largely not involved in the war). Peace had returned to the Confederacy. An estimated 300 or so people had been killed in the fighting around Montgomery, including 13 people disemboweled by Forrest, with hundreds more wounded. However, some sense of normalcy had returned to the Confederacy, albeit great trepidation still existed with regards to the upcoming presidential election in 1879.

 

[TastySpam]

The United States Goes To War
​

The response of American political society to the end of the Civil War was very complex. Although the United States never truly racked up any fantastical victories such as Bulls Run, the Seven Weeks Campaign, Chancellorsville, Chattanooga, or Chickamauga, most military officers in the now were well aware that the United States was clearly winning the war because politics got in the way. However, the widespread popular impression in the Union was that the Confederacy had cleaned the clocks of the Union. Although some fringe politicians called on the United States to take advantage of the Alabama War and strike against the Confederacy, most did not follow them. The press was unconvinced of a victory and although the military and political elite of the Union was fairly certain it would easily best the Confederacy in any kind of rematch, the horrifying brutality and death toll of the war that they experienced left most of these men deeply anti-war. An estimated 800,000 people died in the American Civil War, with some estimates easily clearing 1 million, over 3% of the nation. Although the Confederacy proportionally suffered far harder losses, a majority of the casualties still were Union. One of the most vocal "peace proponents" was the otherwise apolitical William T. Sherman, who steadfastly believed his scorched earth tactics against the Confederacy had driven them to the brink of defeat but nevertheless fiercely opposed any breakdown of peace.

Yet, the United States was to go to war again. Not against the Confederacy, but rather in a corner of the world that few were aware of. In October 1879, the Chilean navy finally enveloped and surrounded most of the freely operating Peruvian navy, including their most formidable ship, the Monitor Huascar. The defeat was total and left the Peruvian-Bolivian coalition with no naval forces outside of the blockaded port of Callao. With the Peruvian-Bolivian Army stranded in the Atacama with no supplies, the Peruvian government in a last ditch effort turned to Isaac Christiancy, the American ambassador to Peru, who personally drafted an extremely long report, including several signatures by Peruvian government officials, of massive commercial concessions that might be available to America in the Peruvian Atacama, including a total nitrates monopoly given to the company of Levi P. Morton, a key Republican ally of Roscoe Conkling, a key intra-party enemy of Secretary of State James P. Blaine. Cristiancy also advocated that the United States annex Peru in the same manner that it annexed the Dominican Republic, but this was widely viewed with opposition since the annexation of the Dominican Republic had proven to be a remarkably head-ache for America. The Dominican territory notably had to be patrolled with armed guards, as Territorial Governor Buenaventura Baez had proven unpopular and had a tendency of "tilting" elections towards himself.

It was widely suspected, though never proven, that American entry into the Pacific War was driven by a deal between Blaine and Conkling, where the pro-Civil Service Reform Blaine would be nominated either for Vice-President, with little opposition from the anti-Civil Service Reform wing of the GOP. Blaine of course wanted to be President, but President Sherman's Attorney General, Benjamin Bristow of Pennslyvania, had gained wide popular acclaim for his prosecution of the Missouri corruption case and was easily the Republican frontrunner in 1880. It was also likely that many Republican political elites did feel a great deal of schadenfreude over the misery inflicted on the Confederacy as a result of his investigation.

As a result, the Blaine Declaration demanded that Chile cease its advance into Peru and accede to "neutral arbitration" by the United States. The Chileans easily saw through the sham and having more or less surrounded the Peruvian Army in the Atacama, refused. With the House and Senate nearly evenly split (a narrowly Democratic House and a narrowly Republican Senate), Sherman and Blaine felt that an official declaration of war would fail. As a result, citing the Barbary Wars (as a precedent for not declaring war) and the Monroe Doctrine, the US Navy was ordered to sail down the Pacific Coast to support the Peruvian-Bolivian forces.

Unfortunately for Chile, under the urging of Secretary of State Blaine, the Sherman administration had actually stopped the deterioration of the navy under the Pendleton and Second Lincoln presidencies, though this admittedly mostly meant that the US Navy was comprised of ships active in the Civil War. Regardless, the War in the Pacific quickly turned into a race against time. The Chilean military, knowing they were on a strict time limit, had a simple strategy. Batter the Peruvians and Bolivians as hard as possible and then more or less sue for peace when the Americans actually managed to get down to Chile.

 

[DAv]

Well, the Confederacy turned to be even more of a clustersnork than expected with the Alabama War. Is there any feelings that this would present something of a precedent for governments in the future about how to deal with unpopular leaders? And interesting to note America's involvement with South America right now, albeit not for the best of intentions...

 

[Lenwe]

Unfortunately for Chile, under the urging of Secretary of State Blaine, the Sherman administration had actually stopped the deterioration of the navy under the Pendleton and Second Lincoln presidencies, though this admittedly mostly meant that the US Navy was comprised of ships active in the Civil War. Regardless, the War in the Pacific quickly turned into a race against time. The Chilean military, knowing they were on a strict time limit, had a simple strategy. Batter the Peruvians and Bolivians as hard as possible and then more or less sue for peace when the Americans actually managed to get down to Chile.

There is not really any rush from the Chilean government to end the war, even with USA intervention, as for this date Bolivia was completely defeated and the Chilean Army was in control of the country, to the point to have militar Ship patrolling the Titicaca, and If you are sending Civil war era Ship against Chile in 1879, the USA is screwed, I doubt they could pass the magellan Strait, and even if they could, the strait is Controlled By Chilean ports and Fortifications, all the supply bases are in Chilean hands, The Naval part of war was over, so
Chile have free reign to redeploy their ships, and their ships were bigger, modern and faster than everything the USA navy have his hands on. So we could see a quick and swift kicking of the USA navy, at least at the medium term in the long term, more than 5 years, the USA could bear all their industrial might against Chile, even without the Confederation and their souther ports

 

[ThatRomanFanatic]

This timeline is pretty interesting.
To be completely honest, I’m most excited to see a surviving and strong Qing Empire. As someone who likes the Qing, there are IMO way too few timelines were they actually do well, never mind survive.

 

[Chris Triangle]

There is not really any rush from the Chilean government to end the war, even with USA intervention, as for this date Bolivia was completely defeated and the Chilean Army was in control of the country, to the point to have militar Ship patrolling the Titicaca, and If you are sending Civil war era Ship against Chile in 1879, the USA is screwed, I doubt they could pass the magellan Strait, and even if they could, the strait is Controlled By Chilean ports and Fortifications, all the supply bases are in Chilean hands, The Naval part of war was over, so
Chile have free reign to redeploy their ships, and their ships were bigger, modern and faster than everything the USA navy have his hands on. So we could see a quick and swift kicking of the USA navy, at least at the medium term in the long term, more than 5 years, the USA could bear all their industrial might against Chile, even without the Confederation and their souther ports

And the US was likely to underestimate Chile's navy and coastal defences. Frankly, there's a rather good chance it would get a bloody nose at some point in the beginning of the war. This could empower other Latin American nations and give them confidence that it was possible to push back against the Yankees and win. The Americans would be concerned about this and likely vengeful if their military adventure went less than perfectly but even if the US eventually came back with great enough strength to completely defeat Chile, its intentions would be far more blatantly imperialistic and less sympathetic to the world. This combined with the military quagmire in the Dominican Republic the legitimacy of the Monroe doctrine would be further damaged (it already was with Southern Secession and the events in Mexico). The US knows that foreign countries could back Chile too and if it fails to get what it wants right off the bat, Chile might take its mineral resources go shopping for friends later. Uh oh.

Also, because of the precedent in the Dominican Republic and the American Civil War, even if the US actually invaded Chile, which I doubt it would, it might experience serious pushback and resistance in a country highly conducive to a resistance campaign (rebels have difficult mountainous terrain, combat experience, the shape of the country makes moving enemy forces difficult and the rebels and are always close to the border with Argentina). It would be absolutely nothing like the Mexican War and in the end, the US could easily lose.

 

[TastySpam]

There is not really any rush from the Chilean government to end the war, even with USA intervention, as for this date Bolivia was completely defeated and the Chilean Army was in control of the country, to the point to have militar Ship patrolling the Titicaca, and If you are sending Civil war era Ship against Chile in 1879, the USA is screwed, I doubt they could pass the magellan Strait, and even if they could, the strait is Controlled By Chilean ports and Fortifications, all the supply bases are in Chilean hands, The Naval part of war was over, so
Chile have free reign to redeploy their ships, and their ships were bigger, modern and faster than everything the USA navy have his hands on. So we could see a quick and swift kicking of the USA navy, at least at the medium term in the long term, more than 5 years, the USA could bear all their industrial might against Chile, even without the Confederation and their souther ports

Giving the US a surprise bloody nose could empower other Latin American nations and give them confidence that it was possible to push back against the Yankees and win. The Americans would be concerned about this and likely vengeful if their military adventure went less than perfectly but even if the US eventually came back with great enough strength to completely defeat Chile, its intentions would be far more blatantly imperialistic and less sympathetic to the world. This combined with the military quagmire in the Dominican Republic the legitimacy of the Monroe doctrine would be further damaged (it already was with Southern Secession and the events in Mexico). The US knows that foreign countries could back Chile too and if it fails to get what it wants right off the bat, Chile might go shopping for friends later. Uh oh.

Also, because of the precedent in the Dominican Republic and the American Civil War, even if the US actually invaded Chile, which I doubt it would, it might experience serious pushback and resistance in a country highly conducive to a resistance campaign due to its geography (rebels have difficult mountainous terrain, combat experience and are always close to the border with Argentina). It would be absolutely nothing like the Mexican War and in the end, the US could easily lose.

Thanks for the feedback, I haven't decided what will actually happen yet and I've done some more research. It does seem that the Chilean ironclads are more advanced than anything the Peruvians or Americans have - though it does not appear that the Peruvian navy was more advanced than the US navy. The Peruvian flagship, the Huascar, began construction in 1864, right when the last US Civil War monitors began construction. The superior Chilean ships were able to corner and defeat the Huascar, but it took them several months. The Huascar was a lot faster than American ironclads (which is why it bedeviled the Chilean Navy for so long before they nabbed it), but the Americans ultimately just have a lot of ironclads.

I think there still has to be a Chilean time crunch just because the Chileans are currently benefiting from total and complete naval dominance. The Atacama Desert basically can only be supplied by sea, and Chilean naval dominance means that the Peruvian/Bolivian armies are just stranded and starving in the desert. Even without ever fighting a successful battle against the Chileans, the entrance of American ships will deny Chile that total dominance (downgraded to mostly dominant)? Contesting control of the seas means something even if you never actually take control.

Also yeah, Chilean control of the Strait of Magellan (and the fact that the American navy is mostly coastal) means they can't sail down the Atlantic - they need to sail down the Pacific (and stop by Peruvian ports) and that limits how many ships they can send.

This timeline is pretty interesting.
To be completely honest, I’m most excited to see a surviving and strong Qing Empire. As someone who likes the Qing, there are IMO way too few timelines were they actually do well, never mind survive.

I make up a lot of stuff as I go (especially in the Americas), but the Qing is one of those countries that uh, well, has a plan already made for it.

 

[ThatRomanFanatic]

but the Qing is one of those countries that uh, well, has a plan already made for it.

.....That sounds ominous and reassuring at the same time.

 

[Lenwe]

Thanks for the feedback, I haven't decided what will actually happen yet and I've done some more research. It does seem that the Chilean ironclads are more advanced than anything the Peruvians or Americans have - though it does not appear that the Peruvian navy was more advanced than the US navy. The Peruvian flagship, the Huascar, began construction in 1864, right when the last US Civil War monitors began construction. The superior Chilean ships were able to corner and defeat the Huascar, but it took them several months. The Huascar was a lot faster than American ironclads (which is why it bedeviled the Chilean Navy for so long before they nabbed it), but the Americans ultimately just have a lot of ironclads.

That is true, but the Huascar was made in england with, at the time, the frontier most experienced naval yards in the world, the USA´s one, were made in well USA, that for a lot of reason was better for the country in the short and long term, But mean that they were made by relative inexperienced naval yards and workers, so they being not as good as they can be, and with a shorter lifespan than the Huascar.
Also the Huascar was commanded by one of the most respected and experienced Naval commanders of America Miguel Grau, the gentleman of the Seas, it´s like the General Lee equal in sea, the guys was a genius, heck he is considered as one of the Heroes of the war by both Chile and Peru, you could nail a lot of the Huáscar success to his genius command and strategy, Plus he was veteran of at least 3 wars before the War of the pacific, experience I doubt the USA commander have.

I think there still has to be a Chilean time crunch just because the Chileans are currently benefiting from total and complete naval dominance. The Atacama Desert basically can only be supplied by sea, and Chilean naval dominance means that the Peruvian/Bolivian armies are just stranded and starving in the desert. Even without ever fighting a successful battle against the Chileans, the entrance of American ships will deny Chile that total dominance (downgraded to mostly dominant)? Contesting control of the seas means something even if you never actually take control.

The problem with that is that after the Battle of Arica in the 26 of February of 1880 the campaign of the desert was over, Bolivia was definitely defeated, and Chile was in Control of Tacna and Arica, the USA intervention in the Lackawanna Conference, was done on the 22 of October of 1880, after that in OTL the Peruvian government asked the USA help. the invasion of Peru proper started in the 18 of november of 1880 with the Invasion of Pisco , the take of Chilca in the 21 of december of 1880 and the conquest and Occupation of Lima between the 13 to the 17 of January of 1881, Depending on how long take the USA navy to mobilize and send the ships south could mean their intervention is made too late to be of significance
.

 

[Chris Triangle]

And now, ironically, the Huascar would go from Peru's greatest naval asset to another thorn in its side as the Chileans have captured and finished repairing repairing her in February 1880. Didn't come with Grau though.

 

[TastySpam]

That is true, but the Huascar was made in england with, at the time, the frontier most experienced naval yards in the world, the USA´s one, were made in well USA, that for a lot of reason was better for the country in the short and long term, But mean that they were made by relative inexperienced naval yards and workers, so they being not as good as they can be, and with a shorter lifespan than the Huascar.
Also the Huascar was commanded by one of the most respected and experienced Naval commanders of America Miguel Grau, the gentleman of the Seas, it´s like the General Lee equal in sea, the guys was a genius, heck he is considered as one of the Heroes of the war by both Chile and Peru, you could nail a lot of the Huáscar success to his genius command and strategy, Plus he was veteran of at least 3 wars before the War of the pacific, experience I doubt the USA commander have.

The problem with that is that after the Battle of Arica in the 26 of February of 1880 the campaign of the desert was over, Bolivia was definitely defeated, and Chile was in Control of Tacna and Arica, the USA intervention in the Lackawanna Conference, was done on the 22 of October of 1880, after that in OTL the Peruvian government asked the USA help. the invasion of Peru proper started in the 18 of november of 1880 with the Invasion of Pisco , the take of Chilca in the 21 of december of 1880 and the conquest and Occupation of Lima between the 13 to the 17 of January of 1881, Depending on how long take the USA navy to mobilize and send the ships south could mean their intervention is made too late to be of significance
.

Yeah, I think we're mostly in agreement. The US commanders actually have decent experience, but their ships are probably inferior. That being said, the US ironclads are built very differently. They were always meant for coastal warfare/defense, so they're a lot slower than the Huascar, but also more heavily armored/armed. Combined with their numbers, my impression is that the Chileans can easily run circles around them, but they don't have the numbers to defeat them in a traditional pitched battle. That being said, pitched battles in warfare are quite overrated. The Chileans don't actually need one to dominate the seas.

Yeah, there's a time crunch, but it favors the Chileans pretty heavily. It's less of a "we gotta rush as soon as posible, race against time!" and more of a "uh, we'll be fine if we don't **** around for months doing nothing."

 

[TastySpam]

The Second "Babylonian Captivity"
​

The Italian government was flabbergasted by the flight of Pope Pius IX. Prime Minister Crispi in particular was outraged, both by the papacy as well as the mob violence in the Vatican. The Italian Army immediately marched into the Vatican, dispersing mobs violently, before taking control of the city themselves. Then, Crispi had a decision to make. A few months later, he saw his chance.

One of Pius IX's first tasks upon settling in Avignon was to officially define papal infallibility. Contrary to the belief of many liberal secularists, the vast majority of cardinals and bishops more or less had already believed in papal infallibility - the disagreement in Avignon was largely a nuanced question of wording. A significant number of bishops voted against the draft constitution outlining papal infallibility not due to any theological disagreement, but simply because they thought the official definition was unnecessary. Indeed, the only major use of papal infallibility was Pius IX's declaration re-confirming the Church's stance on the Immaculate Conception. Regardless, Crispi saw an opportunity, and egged on by the like-minded Prime Minister Gladstone of Britain (who was primarily interested in a permanent religious settlement in Ireland) and the anti-Catholic Chancellor Bismarck of North Germany, he took it.

A very small minority of Catholic bishops had dissented, and upon the proliferation of knowledge that these dissenters would have access to Rome in case of an outright split, their numbers grew. In 1878, a group of dissident Catholic priests led by the Old Catholic Archbishop of Utrecht, Johannes Heykamp, issued the Declaration of Rome, which established the Union of Rome of Old Catholic Churches in the Vatican City, which was declared an independent city-state from the Kingdom of Italy. Crispi loathed the existence of an independent city-state, but he felt this was necessary to help him in his anti-clerical war in Italy proper. This contrasted with Avignon, which was still technically under French sovereignty. Under heavy influence from the governments of Italy, Britain, and Germany, the doctrine of the declaration was relatively limited, primarily (but explicitly) denying the infallibility of the Pope anywhere that would constitute "treason." Of course, papal infallibility had only been used to dogmatize widely-held theological matters, but the Old Catholics insisted that it could be used to justify treason.

In general, very few bishops joined the Union of Rome. Those that did were almost entirely Dutch, German, or English. Most notably, the Austro-Hungarian Pan-Germanist Georg Ritter von Schonerer became one of the highest profile figures to declare for the Roman Union, much to the condemnation of the Austro-Hungarian government. Much to the disappointment of Gladstone, almost no Irish bishops left with them. Although the Old Catholics largely didn't want to have an actual pope since their objection to papal infallibility was based on their strong preference for the perceived leadership structure of the early Church, Crispi demanded that they have someone at least called a Pope who spoke Italian. As a result, the title of Pope was created, though it was largely given a "first among equals" status. The founders decided in a free vote to select the 36-year old Eduard Herzog, a Swiss German who spoke fluent French and Italian, based on the fact that he spoke the best Italian of anyone in attendance. Breaking with tradition, the Roman Union broke with the Roman Catholic tradition of adopting papal names upon ascending as Pope, thus coronating (Anti-)Pope Edward in Rome.

Governments in Europe immediately took sides with regards to the new schism. Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, and North Germany had clearly sided with the Roman Union, immediately recognizing Pope Edward. Most Latin American nations, Austria-Hungary, France, and Portugal vociferously condemned Italy. Notably, Belgium, Russia, and Spain stayed totally neutral, hoping that the split would be settled. The most important geopolitical outcome of the schism was a permanent alienation between Italy's anti-clerical government and France's ultramontane monarchy. In addition, most Catholic priests around the world denounced the "Roman captivity", with most Italian bishops calling on outright resistance to Crispi's anti-clerical government. However, the widespread boycott of Italian Catholics from voting in Italian elections only worked to strengthen Crispi's hold over the Italian government, a government that was increasingly alienating Italians, especially in the South, which in retrospect would be considered one of the key causes of the Italian Revolution.

 

[Lenwe]

Snip​

Nice, another Catholic schim and now in the XIX century, I wonder how the Huge Catholic Latina America Will react​

 

[52cardsshortofadeck]

A more significant Union of Utrecht (well, Rome in this TL)? Huh, this's interesting.

 

[TastySpam]

Nice, another Catholic schim and now in the XIX century, I wonder how the Huge Catholic Latina America Will react​

My guess is that most Latin Americans won't care, they'll think the Roman Union is a stupid European political stunt. Pretty much no bishops in Latin America are joining and most normal everyday people will follow their local priest. That being said, I think some super-anticlerical elite Latin Americans might pay lip service to the Roman Union as the "good Catholics."

I'd say a minority of bishops in North Germany, Switzerland, North America, the Netherlands, and England join. And almost no bishops anywhere else.

 

[Lenwe]

My guess is that most Latin Americans won't care, they'll think the Roman Union is a stupid European political stunt. Pretty much no bishops in Latin America are joining and most normal everyday people will follow their local priest. That being said, I think some super-anticlerical elite Latin Americans might pay lip service to the Roman Union as the "good Catholics."

I'd say a minority of bishops in North Germany, Switzerland, North America, the Netherlands, and England join. And almost no bishops anywhere else.

We will see, Wars were fought for even more stupid reasons